In a swift 102-day proceeding before Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. secured a default final judgment against more than 80 anonymous e-commerce sellers operating under the Schedule A framework. The case, filed April 19, 2024 and closed July 30, 2024, centered on alleged infringement of U.S. Design Patent USD0980990S (Application No. 29/814406), with the court ordering maintenance of a $10,000 surety bond pending full resolution against all named defendants.

This case exemplifies the increasingly prevalent ‘Schedule A’ litigation strategy deployed by Chinese e-commerce plaintiffs against counterfeit and infringing marketplace sellers — a tactic with major implications for platform sellers, IP enforcement teams, and brand protection counsel. The rapid default judgment outcome underscores both the risks facing unrepresented online merchants and the strategic leverage that design patent holders can wield against diffuse marketplace infringers.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

U.S. Design Patent USD0980990S (Application No. 29/814406) protects the ornamental appearance — the visual design — of a specific consumer product marketed under the Kunshengze brand in the sports and outdoor category. Design patents cover how a product looks rather than how it functions, meaning any product that is substantially similar in overall visual impression to the patented design may constitute infringement. The patent provides Kunshengze with exclusive rights to manufacture, sell, and import products bearing that particular design in the United States.

• • USD0980990S

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC (lead: Depeng Bi)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois — the Northern District of Illinois is one of the most commonly selected venues for Schedule A design patent and trademark enforcement actions due to its established procedural familiarity with multi-defendant e-commerce cases, its willingness to grant ex parte temporary restraining orders, and its central jurisdiction over major online marketplace distribution channels. The case proceeded as a first-instance district court action, meaning no prior PTAB or ITC proceedings were involved, and the claims were adjudicated entirely at the trial level without appellate review.

The case was resolved in just 102 days — an exceptionally fast timeline consistent with a default judgment scenario rather than contested litigation. None of the 80+ named defendants appeared, retained counsel, or filed responsive pleadings, prompting the court to enter a default final judgment on the merits in favor of Kunshengze. The $10,000 surety bond posted by the plaintiff was ordered maintained until dismissal or final judgment against all defendants, a standard procedural safeguard in Schedule A multi-defendant actions. The basis of termination was a judgment on the merits for the plaintiff.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court entered a Default Final Judgment against all listed defendants on the merits, finding in favor of plaintiff Shenzhen Kunshengze Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. on its design patent infringement claims related to USD0980990S. The court ordered that the $10,000 surety bond posted by Kunshengze be maintained until the matter is dismissed or final judgment has been entered against all defendants, with plaintiff retaining the right to apply for release of the bond at the appropriate time. No contested damages award was specified in the verdict summary, which is typical where defendants fail to appear and the plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as primary remedies.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The default judgment was entered on the following legal and procedural grounds arising from the infringement action:

• Defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint within the required time period, triggering the default judgment mechanism under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.
• Kunshengze’s complaint adequately pleaded infringement of U.S. Design Patent USD0980990S by defendants’ online marketplace listings and products, establishing a prima facie case for relief.
• The court determined that Kunshengze’s $10,000 surety bond satisfied the security requirement applicable to preliminary injunctive relief orders that typically accompany Schedule A enforcement actions.
• Judgment on the merits was entered for the plaintiff, meaning the court’s ruling has preclusive effect and is not merely a procedural default, reinforcing the legal validity of the infringement findings.

Legal Significance

1. 1. This case confirms that the Northern District of Illinois continues to be a favorable and efficient venue for Schedule A design patent enforcement, with courts willing to enter default judgments on the merits within approximately three months of filing.
2. 2. The entry of judgment ‘on the merits’ rather than on purely procedural grounds strengthens the precedential value of the outcome and may be used to support asset freezing or platform removal actions against infringing sellers on major e-commerce marketplaces.
3. 3. The case signals ongoing judicial receptiveness to design patent assertions by Chinese IP holders against competing Chinese marketplace sellers — a nuanced dynamic that challenges the assumption that Schedule A plaintiffs are always Western brand owners defending against counterfeit imports.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• When representing marketplace sellers targeted in Schedule A actions, immediate engagement is critical — the 102-day timeline from filing to default judgment leaves a narrow window for defendants to appear and contest claims before judgment is entered.
• Plaintiffs pursuing Schedule A design patent actions should ensure the surety bond amount and complaint adequacy are calibrated to survive any late-appearing defendant’s motion to set aside the default, as judgment ‘on the merits’ will face a higher bar for vacatur.
• Counsel advising e-commerce clients should audit all product listings for design patent clearance before launch, particularly in the sports and outdoor category where Chinese design patent holders are increasingly asserting U.S. IP rights.
• The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian LLC’s successful rapid enforcement model in this case demonstrates the viability of aggressive Schedule A strategies for design patent holders seeking to quickly neutralize marketplace competition.

For IP Professionals:

• In-house IP teams managing e-commerce brand protection programs should establish monitoring alerts for new Schedule A filings in the Northern District of Illinois, as these cases often result in swift default judgments with marketplace account freezing as a practical enforcement tool.
• Portfolio managers overseeing design patent assets should consider whether U.S. design patent filings — even where the applicant is a foreign entity — can serve as offensive enforcement tools against marketplace competitors, not just defensive shields against counterfeiters.

For R&D Teams:

• Product designers in the sports and outdoor category must conduct design patent freedom-to-operate searches not only against traditional Western brand holders but also against Chinese companies that have filed U.S. design patents on commercially competing product forms.
• R&D and product teams launching goods through Amazon, Walmart Marketplace, or similar platforms should be aware that a default judgment in a Schedule A case can result in account suspension or product delisting without any court hearing — making pre-launch IP clearance essential.